Could they have reviewed that play as quick as they talked about it? Probably. It takes the same amount of time. To me, that’s the great thing about technology. They can slow everything down. And there’s different things you can do. You could have an umpire right in front of a TV. They could do that. So it could actually speed up the game.

Girardi added that he’d be in favor of replay “as long as it doesn’t slow the games down,” which as Wallace Matthews of ESPNNewYork.com points out is an amusing statement coming from the guy who manages the team that plays the slowest games in baseball. None of which is to suggest that Girardi is anything but right on the money, of course.

I wonder if he thought that last year after Mauer’s double in the corner was ruled foul – though clearly fair? Somehow, I doubt it.
Honestly, I thought that it was a catch, and one didn’t need replay to see that. Shitty calls happen. It’s part of the game. I’d rather have shitty calls than end up with games that move along like NFL games.
I sometimes fall asleep for some over half an hour and I’ve only missed 10 minutes of gametime on Sundays. Baseball is great because it’s simple. If you can institute a simply replay system that doesn’t bog things down… maybe. However, I like that umpires on the field have to be decisive. Replay in the NFL gives officials this… sense of something… because they know certain plays are going to be reviewed. It’s like “eh, I’ll call this whatever… and they’ll figure it out later.” It’s really lowered the quality of officiating, IMHO.
Tennis is a great example of using technology to keep things accurate, but also not intrude on the game – like at the US Open. I don’t know how to do that in baseball, but if they can do it in tennis, it’s possible.